Anti-Smoking Bill To Be Signed Today

[KittenKoder]

Hmm ... yeah ... mmmkay ... no.

Sorry but there are common "acceptable" behaviors that are far worse, but no one ever mentions those. Smoking is only on the offensive now because some moron decided that over eating was getting too much attention, and the fat ass didn't want people to notice it so he twisted stats and changed the focus. No more.

There are worse that affect people outside of yourself? Such as? Talking directly here, not peripherally....

Smoking does not hurt anyone but the smoker, and then even that evidence is circumstantial, with all the other environmental causes ... clean the air up first, then if lung cancer is only for those near smokers you can make such lame claims, but so far, nothing puts more out that cars, period.

 

[Dr Grump]

That's the thing they don't realize, the anti-smoking morons think this is all about our health ... it's not, it's about the government going broke and looking for someone they can rob from to make up for their own fuck ups. Smokers are easy targets since so many people are against them.

I agree with the easy target assessment. People used to harp on to me when I smoked that i was a burden on the health system because I smoked. I pointed out that I'd probably die a lot quicker and sooner than them.....

 

[Dr Grump]

Smoking does not hurt anyone but the smoker, and then even that evidence is circumstantial, with all the other environmental causes ... clean the air up first, then if lung cancer is only for those near smokers you can make such lame claims, but so far, nothing puts more out that cars, period.

Totally disagree. There is empirical evidence that second-hand smoke does cause damage. But I don't sit in a living room with a car going all day do I?

 

[KittenKoder]

Smoking does not hurt anyone but the smoker, and then even that evidence is circumstantial, with all the other environmental causes ... clean the air up first, then if lung cancer is only for those near smokers you can make such lame claims, but so far, nothing puts more out that cars, period.

Totally disagree. There is empirical evidence that second-hand smoke does cause damage. But I don't sit in a living room with a car going all day do I?

No, it's circumstantial ... here's the true logic ... most people who get lung cancer are from highly populated areas, however, the number of smokers is lower in these areas. There is one thing more common in these areas, cars and air pollution.

 

[DamnYankee]

Lower income ... um ... at the prices they are now, it's not low income who are able to afford it. Almost every ex-smoker I know in real life are low income (poverty level) who quite only because they couldn't afford it.

In real life:

Smoking Statistics in the United States
Smoking statistics in the United States indicate that 26 million men (25.7%) and about 23 million women (21%) smoke cigarettes. Smoking statistics for those people 18 years of age and older in the U.S. suggest these smoker estimates for the following ethnic groups:

Caucasians - 26% of all Caucasian men smoke while 22% of all Caucasian women smoke
Black or African Americans - 29% of all Black men smoke while 21% of Black women smoke
Hispanics - 24% of all Hispanic men smoke while 12% of all Hispanic women smoke
Asian and Pacific Islanders - 24% of all Asians smoke while 7% of all Asian women smoke
American Indians and Alaska Natives - 41% of all American Indians/Alaska native men smoke while the same percentage of women - 41% - smoke, as well

The American Heart Association reports additional smoking statistics that indicate that the lesser educated groups of America are more prone to higher percentages of smokers. For example, those with the least amount of education – those educated between 9-11 years – show that 35% of its masses smoke while the most educated group – those educated 16 or more years – show that just under 12% of its masses smoke cigarettes.

Outside of age demographics, there lies the class structure: smoking statistics indicate that 33% of all those living below the poverty level smoke cigarettes.


Ten years ago, in a study performed by The National Household Survey on Drug Abuse for the years ranging from 1988 to 1996, smoking statistics showed that first time use increased 30% for those aged 12-17 years and first daily use increased 50%. In addition, more than 6,000 people under the age of 18 years smoke a cigarette each day and 2,000 people in that age group are daily smokers.

Smoking Statistics - Study of Demographics Prone to Smoking

Statistics are funny ... they are completely subjective ... kinda like how tobacco is suppose to kill off millions a year ...

Wow.... Now you're sounding exactly like someone else I know!

 

[KittenKoder]

In real life:

Smoking Statistics in the United States
Smoking statistics in the United States indicate that 26 million men (25.7%) and about 23 million women (21%) smoke cigarettes. Smoking statistics for those people 18 years of age and older in the U.S. suggest these smoker estimates for the following ethnic groups:

Caucasians - 26% of all Caucasian men smoke while 22% of all Caucasian women smoke
Black or African Americans - 29% of all Black men smoke while 21% of Black women smoke
Hispanics - 24% of all Hispanic men smoke while 12% of all Hispanic women smoke
Asian and Pacific Islanders - 24% of all Asians smoke while 7% of all Asian women smoke
American Indians and Alaska Natives - 41% of all American Indians/Alaska native men smoke while the same percentage of women - 41% - smoke, as well

The American Heart Association reports additional smoking statistics that indicate that the lesser educated groups of America are more prone to higher percentages of smokers. For example, those with the least amount of education – those educated between 9-11 years – show that 35% of its masses smoke while the most educated group – those educated 16 or more years – show that just under 12% of its masses smoke cigarettes.

Outside of age demographics, there lies the class structure: smoking statistics indicate that 33% of all those living below the poverty level smoke cigarettes.


Ten years ago, in a study performed by The National Household Survey on Drug Abuse for the years ranging from 1988 to 1996, smoking statistics showed that first time use increased 30% for those aged 12-17 years and first daily use increased 50%. In addition, more than 6,000 people under the age of 18 years smoke a cigarette each day and 2,000 people in that age group are daily smokers.

Smoking Statistics - Study of Demographics Prone to Smoking

Statistics are funny ... they are completely subjective ... kinda like how tobacco is suppose to kill off millions a year ...

Wow.... Now you're sounding exactly like someone else I know!

No, they are sounding like me, I have never trusted statistics, period. They are subjective and easily manipulated.

 

[Zoom-boing]

I rather enjoy an occasional second hand smoke.

 

[DamnYankee]

kinda like how tobacco is suppose to kill off millions a year ...

Dunno if tobacco itself causes it, but the chemicals attached to ciggies certainly cause diseases that kill people.

No ifs, ands or butts: Obama to sign anti-smoking bill giving FDA authority over tobacco
AP June 22, 2009

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama is set to sign into law an anti-smoking bill that will give the Food and Drug Administration unprecedented authority to regulate tobacco.

Obama is scheduled to sign the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act during an event Monday in the Rose Garden. The law allows the FDA to reduce nicotine in tobacco products, ban candy flavorings and block labels such "low tar" and "light." Tobacco companies also will be required to cover their cartons with large graphic warnings.

The law won't let the FDA ban nicotine or tobacco outright, but the agency will be able to regulate what goes into tobacco products, make public the ingredients and prohibit marketing campaigns, especially those geared toward children.
contd.
Obama To Sign Anti-smoking Bill In Rose Garden - CBS News


So lemme see if I've got this.



The feds (translated Admin & Congress) know FOR A FACT that tar and nicotene are BAD FOR YOU (translated a threat)



The feds refuse to eliminate the threat, but choose instead to REGULATE THE THREAT



Upon regulating the threat, by REDUCING THE THREAT, the feds refuse to allow the THREAT LEVEL to be lowered from ORANGE TO BLUE



and instead post a RED THREAT WARNING



So why is it that the Feds REFUSED TO REMOVE THE THREAT again?

 

[DamnYankee]

Statistics are funny ... they are completely subjective ... kinda like how tobacco is suppose to kill off millions a year ...

Wow.... Now you're sounding exactly like someone else I know!

No, they are sounding like me, I have never trusted statistics, period. They are subjective and easily manipulated.

Statistics are based on data. You, of all people, should understand data. It's what your world exists on. Now, you're more than welcome to attempt to counter the statistics provided with "subjective" statistics of your own, but what I don't accept in a debate with me is out-of-hand dismissal of data (facts) to support an argument. Surely, since one can find anything to support their own opinion out there in your world, that shouldn't be too difficult. We can then discuss the objectivity, or lack thereof, of the two if you like.

 

[editec]

I trust the science of statistics.

What I often find I too often don't trust are the statisticians who compile them.

 

[DamnYankee]

I trust the science of statistics.

What I often find I too often don't trust are the statisticians who compile them.

As I said.... Feel free to submit opposing statistics.

 

[G.G]

I trust the science of statistics.

What I often find I too often don't trust are the statisticians who compile them.

As I said.... Feel free to submit opposing statistics.

Ask and ye shall receive. There is always an opposing statistic to support each side.

Most smokers are not low-income. Recent data from the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention show that 60
percent of adult smokers have incomes
above 200 percent of the poverty line.2
Since a minority of smokers have low
incomes, those with low incomes will
contribute a relatively modest share of
the revenue collected by the proposed
tobacco tax increase. The main share of
the costs of strengthening children’s
coverage will come from smokers with
incomes above 200 percent of the poverty
line.

EXPANDING CHILDRENâS HEALTH INSURANCE AND RAISING FEDERAL TOBACCO TAXES HELPS LOW-INCOME FAMILIES

 

[G.G]

My question is for those who supported the cigarette tax increase to pay for healthcare. If the government succeeds in getting people to quit smoking by increasing the price per pack.... Who the hell do you think will have to make up the cost of the S-CHIP if there are less smokers buying ciggies then the burden for paying for the program will fall upon the rest of the non smoking tax paying citizens. Will you all be jazzed about having yet another tax imposed upon you to pay for those who refuse to work, bilk the system and contribute nothing economically to their own families health insurance plan. You only have to look toward medicaid to see that anybody who receives state healthcare pays 0 towards the cost of doctor visits or medication.

 

[tigerbob]

They have graphic warnings on packets down here...dunno if it has stopped smokers.

In countries where it has been introduced the impact has been negligible.

 

[tigerbob]

kinda like how tobacco is suppose to kill off millions a year ...

Dunno if tobacco itself causes it, but the chemicals attached to ciggies certainly cause diseases that kill people.

It's the carcinogens in combusted tobacco that cause disease. In non combusted tobacco products there are things called TSNAs (Tobacco Specific Nitrosamines) that are harmful.

 

[tigerbob]

Hmm ... yeah ... mmmkay ... no.

Sorry but there are common "acceptable" behaviors that are far worse, but no one ever mentions those. Smoking is only on the offensive now because some moron decided that over eating was getting too much attention, and the fat ass didn't want people to notice it so he twisted stats and changed the focus. No more.

There are worse that affect people outside of yourself? Such as? Talking directly here, not peripherally....

Smoking does not hurt anyone but the smoker, and then even that evidence is circumstantial, with all the other environmental causes ... clean the air up first, then if lung cancer is only for those near smokers you can make such lame claims, but so far, nothing puts more out that cars, period.

Nah. The evidence shows that smoking does hurt smokers and the evidence is fairly clear. The tobacco industry has accepted that for years.

 

[tigerbob]

Smoking does not hurt anyone but the smoker, and then even that evidence is circumstantial, with all the other environmental causes ... clean the air up first, then if lung cancer is only for those near smokers you can make such lame claims, but so far, nothing puts more out that cars, period.

Totally disagree. There is empirical evidence that second-hand smoke does cause damage. But I don't sit in a living room with a car going all day do I?

There is empirical evidence that second hand smoke causes annoyance and discomfort among those who are highly sensitive to it, but if you are referring to long term adverse heath effects that is just not the case. The evidence in that case is spotty, largely inconclusive and in some cases an outright fabrication produced by manipulating statistical data.

 

[tigerbob]

Wow.... Now you're sounding exactly like someone else I know!

No, they are sounding like me, I have never trusted statistics, period. They are subjective and easily manipulated.

Statistics are based on data. You, of all people, should understand data. It's what your world exists on. Now, you're more than welcome to attempt to counter the statistics provided with "subjective" statistics of your own, but what I don't accept in a debate with me is out-of-hand dismissal of data (facts) to support an argument. Surely, since one can find anything to support their own opinion out there in your world, that shouldn't be too difficult. We can then discuss the objectivity, or lack thereof, of the two if you like.

Statistics are facts. However, the interpretation of statistics is subjective. Any statistician will tell you that extreme care should be exercised when extrapolating data sets into a conclusion and that certain guidelines should be followed with regard to confidence and significance or it is very easy indeed to turn an ambiguous finding into a damning one.

 

[tigerbob]

I trust the science of statistics.

What I often find I too often don't trust are the statisticians who compile them.

As I said.... Feel free to submit opposing statistics.

Why don't we look at the statistics that you believe are factual and see how they hold up? Where do they come from?

 

[Zoom-boing]

So why is it that the Feds REFUSED TO REMOVE THE THREAT again?[/COLOR]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yr3Qgbk-gBQ]YouTube - Pink Floyd Money Original Video 1974[/ame]